Amazing how this stuff propagatesBritish tabloids and the NY Post were also "outraged."Sounds like it may have been another attempted Fox News scandal that fell on deaf ears. Except their viewers, of course.
Amazing how this stuff propagatesBritish tabloids and the NY Post were also "outraged."Sounds like it may have been another attempted Fox News scandal that fell on deaf ears. Except their viewers, of course.
More whataboutisms. Particularly when it's been extraordinarily clear that I have little but disdain for DJT. Your assumptions are off, as is your conclusion.It's just funny seeing someone who supports Trump call Obama classless. Please tell me you see the humor in that.
I train myself. Don't put words/thoughts/ideals into my mouth. I'm fully capable of developing my own.IMO, you were trained
It really is fascinating to watch your mental gymnastics and inability to admit you posted something that was dead wrong. fascinating.More whataboutisms. Particularly when it's been extraordinarily clear that I have little but disdain for DJT. Your assumptions are off, as is your conclusion.
In this instance Obama allowed his political bent to trump common sense and respect (heck, this is exactly what a VP is good for).
I train myself. Don't put words/thoughts/ideals into my mouth. I'm fully capable of developing my own.
I think there’s a threshold attractiveness requirement, but after that some people care much more than others. George HW Bush wasn’t a gargoyle or anything, but he certainly wasn’t better looking than Dukakis in 88It's not sexist to notice this. If it makes you feel bad to talk about a female politician this way, try focusing on men instead. Does anybody here honestly believe that George W Bush or Obama would ever have been elected president if they weren't both handsome and "looked" the part? I don't.
Physical attractiveness is important in the labor force, and it's especially important for politicians. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
I don't think you're being disingenuous, but I do think this is an area where you could be more self-aware. You might not consciously think about attractiveness when you're evaluating a leader, but it's almost certainly affecting your judgement.
In the words of the Trump Russia thread, “You can’t prove that.”Nobody forced Hillary to dress nearly exclusively in monochromatic pantsuits.
I’m not sure we’re still allowed to rate the sexiness of Presidential candidates on this board.I think there’s a threshold attractiveness requirement, but after that some people care much more than others. George HW Bush wasn’t a gargoyle or anything, but he certainly wasn’t better looking than Dukakis in 88
Hubba Hubba Herbert Hoover.I’m not sure we’re still allowed to rate the sexiness of Presidential candidates on this board.
:golfclap:It really is fascinating to watch your mental gymnastics and inability to admit you posted something that was dead wrong. fascinating.
/spock
Still dreaming about Carter vs Ford in '76.I’m not sure we’re still allowed to rate the sexiness of Presidential candidates on this board.
Presidents you'd go gay for:I’m not sure we’re still allowed to rate the sexiness of Presidential candidates on this board.
Image mattersI think there’s a threshold attractiveness requirement, but after that some people care much more than others. George HW Bush wasn’t a gargoyle or anything, but he certainly wasn’t better looking than Dukakis in 88
I really thought the last few pages would have been about this. Old guard not wanting to acknowledge they are not what America wants and being passed up for new ideas seems to be a pretty good discussion, but then I read through the last few pages and was disappointed.I like that she fired back at McCaskill.
Demographics changed...the district is only 18% white now..old white establishment guy did not have a chance against a fresh faced Cortez.I have not really paid much attention to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, other than knowing who she is, and that she defeated a Dem Elite in the primary.
But, I like that she is not afraid to speak her mind. I like that she fired back at McCaskill. Sure, she is young, and has much to learn, but I think she brings a fresh perspective to an aging institution.
How do you spend two pages discussing a congresswoman elect responding to comments about her from an outgoing soon to be nobody?I really thought the last few pages would have been about this. Old guard not wanting to acknowledge they are not what America wants and being passed up for new ideas seems to be a pretty good discussion, but then I read through the last few pages and was disappointed.
How do you spend two pages discussing a congresswoman elect responding to comments about her from an outgoing soon to be nobody?
Same here. I don't agree with her politics, but I think it's good to get some younger people in Congress. And there's something wrong with you if you don't like the Starbucks-to-Congress aspect of her story. She's a good role model for other folks.I have not really paid much attention to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, other than knowing who she is, and that she defeated a Dem Elite in the primary.
But, I like that she is not afraid to speak her mind. I like that she fired back at McCaskill. Sure, she is young, and has much to learn, but I think she brings a fresh perspective to an aging institution.
If you take that in depth of an approach to her retort, you are proving mccaskill right.
I think there are many fascinating angles that discussion can take.
Personally, I am disappointed that McCaskill chose to go after Ocasio-Cortez for being too idealistic. I understand that governing is often about compromising your ideals to make policies that everyone can live with. But, I also think its important to have those ideals - have something for which you fight.
As for the discussion, we could talk about the difference in democrats in middle America v. Coastal America, we could talk about the generation gap - youthful exuberance v. aged experience, we can talk about the importance of women supporting women, we can talk about white democrats v. ethnic democrats, we can talk about rural democrats v. urban democrats.
For me - I am just happy to have new voices, raising new concerns, from sometimes new perspectives. I don't have to agree with or even understand people's concerns, but its important to raise them as part of the discussion.
Personally, I think there is a lot to be discussed about a party where there's a battle for direction and controlHow do you spend two pages discussing a congresswoman elect responding to comments about her from an outgoing soon to be nobody?
You know McCaskill is a goner right?Personally, I think there is a lot to be discussed about a party where there's a battle for direction and control
This crap by McCaskill is evidence of that. There's plenty to be discussed starting with the validity (or not) of the perspectives of the new blood like AOC coming into office.
Yep....pot shots as you're walking out the door isn't a good look and seems to be a pretty good example of the rift among "keep it as it is" and "moving in a new direction".You know McCaskill is a goner right?
Cut the crap - we know you just like her because she's hot. You're a pig.I have not really paid much attention to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, other than knowing who she is, and that she defeated a Dem Elite in the primary.
But, I like that she is not afraid to speak her mind. I like that she fired back at McCaskill. Sure, she is young, and has much to learn, but I think she brings a fresh perspective to an aging institution.
Cut the crap - we know you just like her because she's hot. You're a pig.
Are these euphemisms? Asking for a friend'Ill-equipped' and 'not ready for prime time' is what I saw from her.
Very promising young lady with a bright future. Not sure how you define prime time. But she's already there in my book. You can tell by the right's obsession with her.Saw her on "Firing Line' a while back.
'Ill-equipped' and 'not ready for prime time' is what I saw from her.
Did you watch it?Very promising young lady with a bright future. Not sure how you define prime time. But she's already there in my book. You can tell by the right's obsession with her.
No, but I've seen her speak many many times. Very bright young lady.Did you watch it?
Exactly. if you want to know what the other side is afraid of, watch the memes they postShe's got hundreds of memes out there from the pissed off right. Must be doing something well to make so many white males angry.
She's not even in office and there's hundreds of them. And if we're grading the right on level of humor, let's just say they need some work. Yeesh.Exactly. if you want to know what the other side is afraid of, watch the memes they post
Bunch of Republican snowflakes getting their panties in a bunch. They need a safe space.She's got hundreds of memes out there from the pissed off right. Must be doing something well to make so many white males angry.
You know they are scared to death of her and I ####### love it!Bunch of Republican snowflakes getting their panties in a bunch. They need a safe space.
Well what's Trump waiting for? Give this woman a cabinet position!Saw her on "Firing Line' a while back.
'Ill-equipped' and 'not ready for prime time' is what I saw from her.
Could you provide an example?She says a lot of silly things, but I don't think it's from being an ignoramus like it is with Trump. She's probably just trolling.
Bad info here.Demographics changed...the district is only 18% white now..old white establishment guy did not have a chance against a fresh faced Cortez.
Haven’t seen this mentioned yet, which seems odd given it’s the AOC thread:
AOC fires back after McCaskill calls her ‘bright shiny new object’
I have not really paid much attention to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, other than knowing who she is, and that she defeated a Dem Elite in the primary.
But, I like that she is not afraid to speak her mind. I like that she fired back at McCaskill. Sure, she is young, and has much to learn, but I think she brings a fresh perspective to an aging institution.
I really thought the last few pages would have been about this. Old guard not wanting to acknowledge they are not what America wants and being passed up for new ideas seems to be a pretty good discussion, but then I read through the last few pages and was disappointed.
How do you spend two pages discussing a congresswoman elect responding to comments about her from an outgoing soon to be nobody?
I think there are many fascinating angles that discussion can take.
Personally, I am disappointed that McCaskill chose to go after Ocasio-Cortez for being too idealistic. I understand that governing is often about compromising your ideals to make policies that everyone can live with. But, I also think its important to have those ideals - have something for which you fight.
As for the discussion, we could talk about the difference in democrats in middle America v. Coastal America, we could talk about the generation gap - youthful exuberance v. aged experience, we can talk about the importance of women supporting women, we can talk about white democrats v. ethnic democrats, we can talk about rural democrats v. urban democrats.
For me - I am just happy to have new voices, raising new concerns, from sometimes new perspectives. I don't have to agree with or even understand people's concerns, but its important to raise them as part of the discussion.
Personally, I think there is a lot to be discussed about a party where there's a battle for direction and control
This crap by McCaskill is evidence of that. There's plenty to be discussed starting with the validity (or not) of the perspectives of the new blood like AOC coming into office.
I don’t quite agree with this interpretation.Old guard not wanting to acknowledge they are not what America wants and being passed up for new ideas
You're free to dance around the personal jabs and attempt to create whatever nuance you feel is necessary Tim. It's not going to change the fact that there is a battle within the party for control. If her concern was simply policy, she'd have left it at policy. There wouldn't be any personal jabs. You don't get to ignore words simply because you don't want to face them and why they are there.I don’t quite agree with this interpretation.
McCaskill didn’t offer an opinion about whether or not Medicare for All is a good idea or if it’s what America wants. What she said is that it’s not what Missouri wants, based on polling and that right now Missouri is an important swing state and you risk pushing it and other swing states into the red category if you pursue this idea.
I think it’s a valid argument.
Not ignoring them but I don’t put a lot of emphasis on them. McCaskill is done so I’m not too concerned about her personal feelings. I used to like her but that stopped when she agreed with Trump about the migrant caravan in a shameless attempt to win votes. I lost all respect for her after that.You're free to dance around the personal jabs and attempt to create whatever nuance you feel is necessary Tim. It's not going to change the fact that there is a battle within the party for control. If her concern was simply policy, she'd have left it at policy. There wouldn't be any personal jabs. You don't get to ignore words simply because you don't want to face them and why they are there.